JUNES
v.
STATE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2018-09-05
No. 17-2251
255 So. 3d 966 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2018)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

A motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not subject to the time restrictions that apply to postconviction relief motions under Rule 3.850.


Headnotes

[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is distinguishable from a postconviction relief motion under Rule 3.850 and is n…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Manuel Junes appealed a trial court order that treated his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed under Rule 3.800(a) as a motion for postconvict…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

ROTHENBERG, C.J.

Manuel A. Junes (“the defendant”) appeals the trial court’s order treating his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) as a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and denying the motion as untimely filed. Because we conclude that the defendant’s motion was properly filed under rule 3.800(a), it was not time-barred. We, therefore, reverse the order on appeal for consideration on the merits under rule 3.800(a).1 Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes
1 Although we ordered and received a response by the State addressing the merits of the defendant’s claims, we are without jurisdiction to address the merits in the first instance. We, therefore, remand the motion for proper consideration by the trial court. The State is free to re-submit its response on the merits to the trial court.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw